"Climategate" two years later

[Archaeopteryx]

It's fascinating to watch denialists getting pwned. I'll get the popcorn out.

 

[Nabobalis]

It's fascinating to watch denialists getting pwned. I'll get the popcorn out.

Butter I hope!

 

[Archaeopteryx]

A case for not engaging with climate denialists (from Decarbonise SA):

And that’s it. This post marks the end of any formal, structured engagement of mine with the wacky world of climate change denialism. Not because I don’t care any more. I do. But rather because there is just no point, and there are more important ways for me and, I think, the rest of us, to spend our finite time and energy.

 

[thaumaturgy]

A case for not engaging with climate denialists (from Decarbonise SA):

Personally I engage with "skeptoids" in an effort to learn more myself. It helps me learn the real science and allows me to see what the latest junk is that the general public are being fed (such that "public opinion polls" find so many people "skeptical", but skepticism actually requires an appreciation of the science).

I find people like Nighthawkeye interesting because they seem to know so little about the topic that it is like watching a skeptoid "grow" in their skepticism. I can sort of see the path.

First they start off with general critiques of science and how Climategate proved some problem with science (despite the fact that no such thing actually happened to any real degree), then they move onto random hits on a few points they find interesting (usually at the same time showing their hand, such as Nighthawkeye's failure to know anything about the work that has been done on Mid Century Cooling, or even his knowledge of who the players are..."Leeds"?)

I am surprised Nighthawkeye has not had a go at "peer review" yet, that is often a way point on the way to becoming a full fledged "skeptoid".

As I said earlier I was genuinely interested in what Nighthawkeye brought to the table in experience with science and I knew at the time that skeptoids almost never answer that question, so he took it to extremes and started blathering on-and-on about my obsession with bona fides.

Oh, make no mistake, he also got in his "bona fides" (few people can acutally resist) by mentioning his "graduate level statistics book", yet strangely he never got involved in an actual discussion of statistics or even basic inferential statistics with the standard excuse that, of course he could but he didn't want to bore the rest of the board. He prefers Wikipedia for his "references" (as if there aren't graduate level discussions of statistics freely available on the internet that he could cut and paste from!)

And finally "skeptoids" almost always start in with the "LOL" and "ROFL" and laughing animated gifs pretty quickly. It is thier shield. That way they can show their derision and hope to hide the fact that they will dodge and weave and avoid any detailed discussion of the science they so clearly "know" all about.

I've heard all of this before from other skeptoids. It's standard fare. It's fun to watch even if a bit repetitive. At least you know what the next point will be in the next post.

As an example: Nighthawkeye provides a graph from skepticalscience, but refuses repeated requests for the actual discussion point source from the site or the article from which it comes, instead demands I address Roy Spencer's points. So I address the disagreement directly between surface and satellite trends with a quote taken from a study that discussed this exact point.

So Nighthawkeye mysteriously starts focusing on where graphs come from.

The irony is not lost on me.

Nighthawkeye like most "board skeptoids" has little to offer in the way of educating anyone (otherwise he'd risk "boring" all you little people who are not as brilliant as he), but he has plenty of bile to spew ("LOL", "ROFL", etc.) and focus on side-points when his points are directly addressed.

I've already admitted my lack of facility with time-series analyses and I earnestly would like someone with "graduate level statistics" to provide some insight into trend estimation in autocorrelated data.

But Nighthawkeye will never provide this. He will never discuss his experience in science (it is always interesting to learn other people's experience).

It will just never happen. And if it does I will be totally surprised. For several years now I've been asking many of these same questions from folks like Nighthawkeye and I have almost never found any who will provide "information".

 

[NightHawkeye]

A case for not engaging with climate denialists (from Decarbonise SA):

Ahh ... that false dichotomy, again, that turns the debate into good-guys vs the bad-guys.


FACT: Earth's climate changes.

FACT: Observed changes in recent years have been small.

FACT: Big money has been thrown down to influence the global warming debate.

FACT: East Anglia researchers exhibited unseemly bias.

FACT: A few voices of reason are around who get past the false dichotomy. I referenced Roy W. Spencer as one.



.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

Personally I engage with "skeptoids" in an effort to learn more myself. It helps me learn the real science and allows me to see what the latest junk is that the general public are being fed (such that "public opinion polls" find so many people "skeptical", but skepticism actually requires an appreciation of the science).

I find people like Nighthawkeye interesting because they seem to know so little about the topic that it is like watching a skeptoid "grow" in their skepticism. I can sort of see the path.

First they start off with general critiques of science and how Climategate proved some problem with science (despite the fact that no such thing actually happened to any real degree), then they move onto random hits on a few points they find interesting (usually at the same time showing their hand, such as Nighthawkeye's failure to know anything about the work that has been done on Mid Century Cooling, or even his knowledge of who the players are..."Leeds"?)

I am surprised Nighthawkeye has not had a go at "peer review" yet, that is often a way point on the way to becoming a full fledged "skeptoid".

As I said earlier I was genuinely interested in what Nighthawkeye brought to the table in experience with science and I knew at the time that skeptoids almost never answer that question, so he took it to extremes and started blathering on-and-on about my obsession with bona fides.

Oh, make no mistake, he also got in his "bona fides" (few people can acutally resist) by mentioning his "graduate level statistics book", yet strangely he never got involved in an actual discussion of statistics or even basic inferential statistics with the standard excuse that, of course he could but he didn't want to bore the rest of the board. He prefers Wikipedia for his "references" (as if there aren't graduate level discussions of statistics freely available on the internet that he could cut and paste from!)

And finally "skeptoids" almost always start in with the "LOL" and "ROFL" and laughing animated gifs pretty quickly. It is thier shield. That way they can show their derision and hope to hide the fact that they will dodge and weave and avoid any detailed discussion of the science they so clearly "know" all about.

I've heard all of this before from other skeptoids. It's standard fare. It's fun to watch even if a bit repetitive. At least you know what the next point will be in the next post.

As an example: Nighthawkeye provides a graph from skepticalscience, but refuses repeated requests for the actual discussion point source from the site or the article from which it comes, instead demands I address Roy Spencer's points. So I address the disagreement directly between surface and satellite trends with a quote taken from a study that discussed this exact point.

So Nighthawkeye mysteriously starts focusing on where graphs come from.

The irony is not lost on me.

Nighthawkeye like most "board skeptoids" has little to offer in the way of educating anyone (otherwise he'd risk "boring" all you little people who are not as brilliant as he), but he has plenty of bile to spew ("LOL", "ROFL", etc.) and focus on side-points when his points are directly addressed.

I've already admitted my lack of facility with time-series analyses and I earnestly would like someone with "graduate level statistics" to provide some insight into trend estimation in autocorrelated data.

But Nighthawkeye will never provide this. He will never discuss his experience in science (it is always interesting to learn other people's experience).

It will just never happen. And if it does I will be totally surprised. For several years now I've been asking many of these same questions from folks like Nighthawkeye and I have almost never found any who will provide "information".

You've touched upon many of the reasons that denialists only engage the debate in this space and not in journals or at conferences. In this space it is acceptable and indeed common practice to repeatedly ask inane questions that have been addressed dozens of times before, to copy-and-paste from Wikipedia, and to accuse scientists of being driven by a political agenda (without the slightest bit of evidence), all tinged in tones of derision and accompanied by accusations of some quasi-conspiratorial hoax at the hands of some vague 'New World Order'. None of this would be deemed acceptable in the space in which climate scientists actually work in. So they bring their denialism here, where (they hope) it stands a chance of catching on.

 

[Nabobalis]

A

FACT: East Anglia researchers exhibited unseemly bias.
.

Not a fact and have been shown not to be the case by three different investigations.

 

[thaumaturgy]

FACT: Earth's climate changes.

REAL FACT: Yes it does. For a variety of reasons. These are called climate forcings. Human activity can and has been a cause of climate forcings. As I discussed at length with actual references earlier: attribution studies exist to support this hypothesis. (LINK)

ALSO REAL FACT: paleoenvironmental data underlies much of why we know humans are likely responsible for much of the climate change in the last 50 or so years.

FACT: Observed changes in recent years have been small.

REAL FACT: CO2, a known greenhouse gas has not been this high for the past 15 million years (LINK).

REAL FACT: Going back thousands of years the 13C/12C ratio of atmospheric carbon was relatively stable then starting in the middle 19th century the 12C isotope began to increase right in line with what one expects from the massive burning of fossil fuels. And at a time when the industrial revolution was kicking off. (LINK)

FACT: Big money has been thrown down to influence the global warming debate.

REAL FACT: Big money has been thrown down to skeptics as well. Willie Soon to recieve $1 million dollars from oil companies (LINK).

ExxonMobil continues to fund climate skeptic groups (LINKY)

There is no specific funding for "non-skeptic" groups. There is and always has been funding for research from the U.S. government and there is no requirement of a given conclusion. (Any evidence to the contrary will be expected).

FACT: East Anglia researchers exhibited unseemly bias.

No proof of that in relation to the published data and the final science.

Evidence of your positive claim of bias will be required.

FACT: A few voices of reason are around who get past the false dichotomy. I referenced Roy W. Spencer as one.

FACT: Roy Spencer is among the about 3% of climate scientists who are skeptical of AGW. There are skeptics in all areas of science.

FACT: Merely finding a few skeptics does not necessarily negate all of the basic science since, as discussed earlier, there is no absolute proof in science. There is only the most likely hypothesis.

If finding a skeptic = decimation of an hypothesis we'd have no workable science whatsoever.






.[/quote]

 

[NightHawkeye]

No proof of that in relation to the published data and the final science.

Evidence of your positive claim of bias will be required.

Well ... let's start with this, then. If you require more, just let me know.

From: Never Yet Melted » University of East Anglia CRU

Those of us who remember the Climategate scandal of 2009, when Russian Intelligence released damaging emails exchanged between Phil Jones, head of the University of East Anglia’s Climate Research Center and other principal figures like Penn State’s Michael Mann, will recall Jones promising Mann on July 8, 2004, that he and Kevin Trenberth (of the US National Center for Atmospheric Research) would keep dissenting papers out of the next IPCC report by hook or by crook:

“I can’t see either of these papers being in the next IPCC report. Kevin and I will keep them out somehow — even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is! ”
​

That's just one e-mail though ... perhaps just an odd tyrannical complex ... delusions of grandeur, and all that ... it's not like anyone ever followed through, is it? (By the way, the e-mail, by itself is not just biased, it shows clear intent ... I think that's a legal term, Thaumaturgy. )

But wait, there's more to the story ... he actually followed through ...

March 11, 2003—“I will be emailing the journal to tell them I’m having nothing more to do with it until they rid themselves of this troublesome editor. ”

The Soon-Baliunas paper is described by Wikipedia as having “reviewed 240 previously published papers and tried to find evidence for temperature anomalies in the last thousand years such as the Medieval warm period and the Little Ice Age. It concluded that ‘Across the world, many records reveal that the 20th century is probably not the warmest or a uniquely extreme climatic period of the last millennium.’ ”
...
Climate Research’s chief editor, Hans von Storch, was persuaded to torpedo the offending paper in the same journal which had published it: The review process had failed. An unworthy paper had been published which did not adequately taken into account opposing arguments. The editorial policy of board editor Chris de Frietas responsible for its publication was insufficiently rigorous.

Storch then announced in the same editorial that he intended to impose a new regime giving himself final say on any paper’s publication. The publisher refused to accept the proposed dictatorship, and Storch and four other editors subsequently resigned in a thorough bloodbath.
​

Help me follow the trail here, Thaumaturgy. Here's what the FACTS are:

- Demagogues pressure scientific journal editor to exclude competiting opinion papers.
- Editor, in surprising reversal torpedoes competing paper ... after it had already been thoroughly peer reviewed.
- Editor, in another surprising tyrannical move announces himself, dictator in chief.
- Publisher, astounded by editorial staff, accepts mass "resignations". I'm guessing forced resignations. Whaddaya think, Thaumaturgy?


But, hey, that's all ancient history, right? Apparently, not ...

Well, what do you know? Here we are in 2011, and it’s déjà vu all over again.

This time the paper is by Roy Spencer and William D. Braswell and is titled On the Misdiagnosis of Climate Feedbacks from Variations in Earth’s Radiant Energy Balance. The paper appeared in Remote Sensing in July.

Isn’t it amazing? For the second time in under a decade, some feckless scientific journal has published a paper offering conclusions deeply injurious to AGW, and again, in otherwise unprecedented reversals, the journal’s editor has attacked his own journal’s paper ex post facto for alleged lack of rigor and for purportedly failing to do justice to its opponent’s arguments, and resigned.
​

There ya have it, Thaumaturgy ... one of the most qualified scientists in the world goes through peer review, gets paper published and heads roll in the publishing community.

What's up with that, anyway? Kinda thought science was unbiased ... allowing opposing theories to be expressed ...


.

 

[thaumaturgy]

Those of us who remember the Climategate scandal of 2009, when Russian Intelligence released damaging emails exchanged between Phil Jones, head of the University of East Anglia’s Climate Research Center and other principal figures like Penn State’s Michael Mann, will recall Jones promising Mann on July 8, 2004, that he and Kevin Trenberth (of the US National Center for Atmospheric Research) would keep dissenting papers out of the next IPCC report by hook or by crook:

“I can’t see either of these papers being in the next IPCC report. Kevin and I will keep them out somehow — even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is! ”
​

That's just one e-mail though ... perhaps just an odd tyrannical complex ... delusions of grandeur, and all that ... it's not like anyone ever followed through, is it? (By the way, the e-mail, by itself is not just biased, it shows clear intent ... I think that's a legal term, Thaumaturgy. )

But wait, there's more to the story ... he actually followed through ...

March 11, 2003—“I will be emailing the journal to tell them I’m having nothing more to do with it until they rid themselves of this troublesome editor. ”

The Soon-Baliunas paper is described by Wikipedia as having “reviewed 240 previously published papers and tried to find evidence for temperature anomalies in the last thousand years such as the Medieval warm period and the Little Ice Age. It concluded that ‘Across the world, many records reveal that the 20th century is probably not the warmest or a uniquely extreme climatic period of the last millennium.’ ”
...

​

And you will certainly know that not just CRU people expressed serious reservations with the Soon and Baliunas paper. In fact a number of reviewers resigned over the publication of Soon and Baliunas article which many felt was seriously flawed. The Editor-in-Chief of Climate Research resigned in relation to this case.

Just because a paper is rejected (or many scientists feel it should be rejected) is not a sign of "bias" it is how peer review works and it is part and parcel of how papers are adjudicated by their peers.

Climate Research’s chief editor, Hans von Storch, was persuaded to torpedo the offending paper in the same journal which had published it: The review process had failed. An unworthy paper had been published which did not adequately taken into account opposing arguments. The editorial policy of board editor Chris de Frietas responsible for its publication was insufficiently rigorous.

So you are saying that a paper was published even after you spent so much time finding examples of how people kept it from being published????

I don't get it.

How could something get published that was actively kept from being published?

Help me follow the trail here, Thaumaturgy. Here's what the FACTS are:

- Demagogues pressure scientific journal editor to exclude competiting opinion papers.

Did they get the journal to exclude it? And since when are scientific papers merely "opinion" pieces? Remember why peer review exists.

- Editor, in surprising reversal torpedoes competing paper ... after it had already been thoroughly peer reviewed.

Peer review isn't perfect. If sufficient people feel a paper suffers serious flaws are they not in the right to protest?

- Editor, in another surprising tyrannical move announces himself, dictator in chief.

Interestingly enough the Independent Climate Change Email Review (HERE) found that no undue pressure was placed on Climate Research.

In total the ICCER found the following when assessing the 3 cases investigated around possible conclusion to unduly influence publication:

On the allegations that there was subversion of the peer review or editorial process we find no evidence to substantiate this in the three instances examined in detail. On the basis of the independent work we commissioned (see Appendix 5) on the nature of peer review, we conclude that it is not uncommon for strongly opposed and robustly expressed positions to be taken up in heavily contested areas of science. We take the view that such behaviour does not in general threaten the integrity of peer review or publication.(SOURCE)

Now in fairness the Review found that the CRU should have been more open and forthcoming with data, but found no evidence for undue influence on publication of dissenting opinion, nor did they find evidence for fraudulent manipulation or selection of data.

There ya have it, Thaumaturgy ... one of the most qualified scientists in the world goes through peer review, gets paper published and heads roll in the publishing community.

What's up with that, anyway? Kinda thought science was unbiased ... allowing opposing theories to be expressed ...
.

Here's what the editor who resigned had to say about the Spencer article:

After having become aware of the situation, and studying the various pro and contra arguments, I agree with the critics of the paper. Therefore, I would like to take the responsibility for this editorial decision and, as a result, step down as Editor-in-Chief of the journal Remote Sensing.
…
With this step I would also like to personally protest against how the authors and like-minded climate sceptics have much exaggerated the paper’s conclusions in public statements(SOURCE)

Even the folks at Realclimate feel there are worse papers that get published than Spencers 2011 paper but they take some time to point out the general sloppiness of the paper and the attendant review of said paper:

The signs of sloppy work and (at best) cursory reviewing are clear on even a brief look at the paper. Figure 2b has the axes mislabeled with incorrect units. No error bars are given on the correlations in figure 3 (and they are substantial – see figure 2 in the new Dessler paper). The model-data comparisons are not like-with-like (10 years of data from the real world compared to 100 years in the model – which also makes a big difference). And the ‘bottom-line’ implication by S&B that their reported discrepancy correlates with climate sensitivity is not even supported by their own figure 3. Their failure to acknowledge previous work on the role of ENSO in creating the TOA radiative changes they are examining (such as Trenberth et al, 2010 or Chung et al, 2010), likely led them to ignore the fact that it is the simulation of ENSO variability, not climate sensitivity, that determines how well the models match the S&B analysis (as clearly demonstrated in Trenberth and Fasullo’s guest post here last month). With better peer review, Spencer could perhaps have discovered these things for himself, and a better and more useful paper might have resulted. By trying to do an end run around his critics, Spencer ended up running into a wall. (SOURCE)

Of course there's always two sides to every story. But when an editor resigns it usually a sign of serious reservations about what happened in the journal they have responsibility for or how they feel that the publisher responded to the hue and cry over an article.

But in both cases you cite the papers were published. They are out there. ANYONE can find them and read them. They were NOT held up or kept from being published.

Again, your personal experience with science would be helpful to know. I assume you have had peer reviewed papers or acted as a peer reviewer. Did every paper that crossed your desk get approved by you without caveat? Did every one of your papers get published without revision?

If so, then bravo!

I had a paper published and later while acting as a peer reviewer was passed a paper that found an error in my earlier paper. I lauded that paper and suggested it be published because it was a valid point! It was a good catch! I had erred!

This is how peer review often works. Not everything is good enough to get published just because you personally like it, nor does every published paper mean it is free of error.

I would assume you yourself could supply us many examples from your experience with peer review.

Again, it is always interesting to get the view from my fellow professional researchers.

 

[chaz345]

Just because a paper is rejected (or many scientists feel it should be rejected) is not a sign of "bias" it is how peer review works and it is part and parcel of how papers are adjudicated by their peers.

Maybe not. But saying that you'll keep it out even if doing so requires changing the rules is certainly a sign of something other than open and honest examination of data and theories.

 

[NightHawkeye]

Of course there's always two sides to every story. But when an editor resigns it usually a sign of serious reservations about what happened in the journal they have responsibility for or how they feel that the publisher responded to the hue and cry over an article.

But in both cases you cite the papers were published. They are out there. ANYONE can find them and read them. They were NOT held up or kept from being published.

Barely ... and heads rolled in both cases. One might wonder ... if someone such as Roy W. Spencer, a giant in the field, finds it difficult to publish, then how much work never got published from those of lesser stature.

Harold L. Lewis was adamant that the suppression of open debate on "Global Warming" amounted to fraud when the New York Times printed his interview last year:

"OK, as a first step, fraud is a contagious disease. Bernie Madoff committed fraud, pure and simple, but the people who profited from it covered the spectrum. Undoubtedly some were completely unaware, and there was every gradation…. The important thing for me is the suppression of open debate, which is the conventional way to identify fraud." A Physicist's Climate Complaints - NYTimes.com
​

I won't list Hal Lewis' qualifications, but I will link to his award-winning book on global warming and related concerns from twenty years ago: Technological Risk: What are the real dangers, if any, of toxic chemicals, the greenhouse effect, microwave radiation, nuclear power, air travel, automobile travel, carcinogens of all kinds, and other threats to our peace of mind? Technological risk - H. W. Lewis - Google Books

I'm guessing he knew a thing or two about climate matters, Thaumaturgy. Whaddaya think? His focus seemed to be "global" though, if you'll pardon the obvious pun.

Almost forgot ... Hal Lewis' stature forced the American Physical Society to respond with a press release when Hal resigned from that organization:

On the matter of global climate change, APS notes that virtually all reputable scientists agree with the following observations:
​

And, with that single statement APS confirmed Hal Lewis' criticism about suppression of debate ... Obviously, anyone who dares to disagree is not reputable.

In their own words, Thaumaturgy ... their own words, sadly ...

On these matters, APS judges the science to be quite clear. However, APS continues to recognize that climate models are far from adequate, and the extent of global warming and climatic disruptions produced by sustained increases in atmospheric carbon loading remain uncertain. In light of the significant settled aspects of the science, APS totally rejects Dr. Lewis’ claim that global warming is a “scam” and a “pseudoscientific fraud.” http://www.aps.org/about/pressreleases/haroldlewis.cfm
​

And ... so ends debate on the matter ... according to APS.

 

[thaumaturgy]

Barely ... and heads rolled in both cases.

So you have evidence that these folks were forced to resign? "heads rolled"? Now I'm no stranger to that kind of thing in industry. SOmetimes people of power are asked to step aside.

But do, please, provide some evidence of yet another positive claim.

You just pile more positive claims up backed up by shaky evidence.

One might wonder ... if someone such as Roy W. Spencer, a giant in the field,

I am guessing at this rate in about 3 more of your posts Roy W. Spencer will be at the "Einstein" level of greatness. In 5 posts he'll be part of the Holy Trinity.

A "giant"? Does a "giant" in the field mess up labeling of axes on his or her graphs?

finds it difficult to publish, then how much work never got published from those of lesser stature.

For someone who so earnestly sneers at the discussion of ones credentials you seem to basically be building your argument here solely on Roy Spencer's "greatness". Interesting tactic.

So do you think it could have anything to do with the other people's view of his science?

Nah, it must be a nefarious attack on one of the greatest minds of the 20th century! No less.

Harold L. Lewis was adamant that the suppression of open debate on "Global Warming" amounted to fraud when the New York Times printed his interview last year:

Yeah, yeah, heard it before. If it weren't such a cliche I'd say it was important. Old scientists who are no longer at the lead of their field often have difficulty with the newer science. Einstein didn't like parts of Quantum, Dirac didn't like QED, etc. etc.

I had an aging mineralogy prof who had serious doubts about parts of plate tectonics.

I'm not saying Lewis wrong because of this, but just another of the small number of scientists (some of whom are not even active doing science anymore, and interestingly so, Dr. Lewis was involved in research on solid state physics and plasmas.

I won't list Hal Lewis' qualifications

Nor do you have to because I've already heard this stuff all before.

 

[rambot]

Nighthawkeye
and
Thaum..


I wonder if there is ANY WAY you could take the whole "Credentials" peeing test into a new and separate thread. I REALLY would like to read what you guys think about the science. I agree credentials are important but if they get dragged into EVERY discussion it gets so pedantic and borders on childish sometimes. Apologizies if offense is taken (i have absolutely participated in this behaviour before but I see it REALLY REALLY dragging down the potential of this thread.


And in the interest of a clean break, maybe no blaming after?

Sincerely,

Someone who is quite interested in what you have to say.

 

[NightHawkeye]

I am guessing at this rate in about 3 more of your posts Roy W. Spencer will be at the "Einstein" level of greatness. In 5 posts he'll be part of the Holy Trinity.

A "giant"? Does a "giant" in the field mess up labeling of axes on his or her graphs?

Which reminds me, you never did clear up the little discrepancy below:

(Oh yeah, and in case you need to know where this comes from it's HERE)

LOL ... Actually, you got that from the pro global-warming website, Skeptical Science. It's distinctly different from the actual chart at your referenced source, which is now a global warming skeptic webpage. Go figure.

I'll let you explain your choice of charts ... and the discrepancies, if you'd care to. It appears that the website reverted to an earlier chart showing considerably greater discrepancies. I could only guess why ...

You seem to have made an error referencing the wrong website here, Thaumaturgy. Also, any chance you figured out why that website reverted to an earlier chart which shows considerably larger differences between satellite and terrestrial measurements?

For someone who so earnestly sneers at the discussion of ones credentials you seem to basically be building your argument here solely on Roy Spencer's "greatness". Interesting tactic.

LOL ... just trying to communicate to you in a language you understand.

So do you think it could have anything to do with the other people's view of his science?

Nah, it must be a nefarious attack on one of the greatest minds of the 20th century! No less.

Mediocre science gets published all the time, Thaumaturgy.

Errors with charts happen all the time, too - as evidenced by your earlier example. The formatting standards required for publishing papers is so arcane as to precipitate errors ... well, maybe not with you though.

Yeah, yeah, heard it before. If it weren't such a cliche I'd say it was important. Old scientists who are no longer at the lead of their field often have difficulty with the newer science. Einstein didn't like parts of Quantum, Dirac didn't like QED, etc. etc.

Ahh ... thank you for that insight, Thaumaturgy. That explains a lot, LOL.

 

[thaumaturgy]

Maybe not. But saying that you'll keep it out even if doing so requires changing the rules is certainly a sign of something other than open and honest examination of data and theories.

Again, we appear to be talking about articles that were published.

What you are reading in Climategate is stolen interpersonal communications.

Again, could all of your e-mails stolen off your computer be considere nothing but "good and kind" to everyone?

Just curious. Because you guys act like this was some "official act" these guys were talking about.

I don't know what planet you live on but on earth people blow off steam when talking to coworkers.

But maybe you don't. Let he who is without sin cast the first stone and all dontcha know.

 

[thaumaturgy]

Which reminds me, you never did clear up the little discrepancy below:

My apologies, I did mistakenly cite the graph! Thanks for finding that.

Now let's get back to the original point about the difference between the surface and satellite data has been addressed HERE

"Previously reported discrepancies between the amount of warming near the surface and higher in the atmosphere have been used to challenge the reliability of climate models and the reality of human induced global warming. This significant discrepancy no longer exists because errors in the satellite and radiosonde data have been identified and corrected. While these data are consistent with the results from climate models at the global scale, discrepancies in the tropics remain to be resolved.

You seem to have made an error referencing the wrong website here, Thaumaturgy.

How so?

I showed a graph and provided the reference from whence it came. If I was in error then the graph should not be on that site. It is.

Also, any chance you figured out why that website reverted to an earlier chart which shows considerably larger differences between satellite and terrestrial measurements?

I don't know, it's not my website. I posted a graph.

The most important thing is that the difference between surface and satellite measurements are not as great after appropriate corrections are made.

Mediocre science gets published all the time, Thaumaturgy.

Correct. But that does not mean scientists have to be happy with it.

My first publication got a review that read, if I recall something to the effect of "this is worthy of a high school science project". It was brutal. The reviewer even went out of their way to slam my coauthor who was my advisor and the reviewer said he was surprised she would have anything to do with this.

Scientists are not friendly all the time. They are not a mutual support group. Why wouldn't researchers get up in arms when a journal publishes what they perceive to be bad science?

In you years in graduate departments no doubt you saw some of the worst politics imaginable.

The formatting standards required for publishing papers is so arcane as to precipitate errors ...

"arcane"? How so?

It is hardly arcane to label axes. Something we all learn the hard way one way or another at some point.

 

[eclipsenow]

No one who actually read up on the 'Climate-gate' emails can honestly say they in any way threaten AGW. "hide the decline!" Yay, pick a phrase and pluck it out of context and chant it a thousand times. It doesn't change the context, nor the science, nor the imminent threat.

One may as well pluck "There is no god" out of the bible out of context. Oh yeah, that's in the bible. Case closed. There is no god. We don't need context, not at all.

(In case someone can't read context literally 'at all', the paragraph above was sarcastic. As this one may have been).

"Hide the decline"? Of what!? Why? What does it all mean?

 

[thaumaturgy]

No one who actually read up on the 'Climate-gate' emails can honestly say they in any way threaten AGW. "hide the decline!" Yay, pick a phrase and pluck it out of context and chant it a thousand times. It doesn't change the context, nor the science, nor the imminent threat.

One may as well pluck "There is no god" out of the bible out of context. Oh yeah, that's in the bible. Case closed. There is no god. We don't need context, not at all.

(In case someone can't read context literally 'at all', the paragraph above was sarcastic. As this one may have been).

"Hide the decline"? Of what!? Why? What does it all mean?

This is precisely why Climategate is such a joke. In some cases it's almost impossible to determine an actual context, so people "infer" something.

The worst part about the "hide decline" cannard was that some e-mails also spoke of "Mike's Nature trick". And used that as an indication of fraudulent activity!

Anyone who's been around data processing knows that people, speaking informally, will and often do refer to processing and data treatment "tricks" or "mathematical tricks".

The thing I find most disingenuous about Climategate critiques is that here we have stolen interpersonal communications of an informal nature that have little context associated with it and have, in the couple years since they came to the surface shown repeatedly that no evidence exists for fraudulent manipulation of data, yet the skeptics can't even be expected to play fair and let it go!

They want their cake and to eat it too, oh, and btw, please steal a pie for them, tell them it's cake and off they go.

I would love to know if any skeptoid who relies on Climategate to challenge the science would aquiesce to having every one of their personal e-mails for a couple years stolen and published at random across the internet.

Would we be able to infer any bad actions from out of context "talk" in their informal communications?

I bet just about every bit of money I have we could with anyone. ANYONE.

Ever said anything unpleasant about a coworker? Well, you are bully, with intent to harrass a coworker which means you have automatically fallen afoul of your HR department's "safe workplace" rules. You can expect to be fired. Ever make a joke about this quarter's numbers? Oh, then clearly you are showing intent to falsify fiscal records. The SEC will be at your door tomorrow to arrest you. Say hi to Bernie Madoff in prison. Oh also, it means the company you work for is a total sham. That company, even if it is a multibillion dollar organization across several continents employing thousands and thousands of people and you weren't responsible for any other part of the business? Oh well, doesn't matter. The entire company must be destroyed. I mean, it's obviously questionable in how they do their business. They hire people who harrass their coworkers and monkey with the fiscals!

 

[NightHawkeye]

The thing I find most disingenuous about Climategate critiques is that here we have stolen interpersonal communications of an informal nature that have little context associated with it and have, in the couple years since they came to the surface shown repeatedly that no evidence exists for fraudulent manipulation of data, yet the skeptics can't even be expected to play fair and let it go!

Let's talk about that, Thaumaturgy. "Play fair"?

Starting when? And ... what are the definitions of fair? Seriously.

Are we talking morality? Scientific ethics? Christian ethics? Muslim ethics? Journalistic ethics?

Help me out, Thaumaturgy. Personally, I kinda favor "truth". Whatever do you mean by "play fair"?



Truth has no agenda.